Convoluting WMD

Julian Sanchez misses the point. WMD was never the primary consideration for going to war in Iraq by any of the architects of the war, or those intellectuals which supported it. WMD was harped on by the Bush admin. because it could be fit into easily-assimilated soundbytes that the Modal Voter could understand. in other words, the masses could understand WMD; they couldn't understand the need to end the sanctions without promoting Saddam, to punish Saddam for his continual flouting of the law, to remove a brutal dictatorship and liberate its people (which did happen, let's remember), to confront a looming problem - the inevitable collapse of Iraq - on our terms, and not to let it devolve into a Talibanized regime.

In other words, the argument for regime change was that Iraq was a threat. Not an immediate, 9/11-style threat, but a future threat. and if we could confront that threat head-on instead of letting the situation morph into an even more dangerous situation, we should do it. if we could achieve a better post-Saddam outcome through intervention than we could through inaction as the Saddam-regime crumbled into chaos (and inevitable sectarian violence), then we should intervene.

at least, that's what the arguments should've been. those are the arguments that make the most sense. if the litmus test were truly WMD, we'd be invading Pakistan, Libya, etc.